Tuesday, 5 June 2012

Cheryl Cole Proves She Can't Sing Live.

Cheryl (Cole) had something to prove. Having performed Call My Name at The Voice semi-final a week ago, she had been accused of making a mockery of the program and its premise by lip-synching. It was an accusation her team denied, but the Girls Aloud member clearly felt the need to prove her vocal chops by singing live during her duet with Gary Barlow at this weekend's Diamond Jubilee celebrations. Either that, or she had no choice but to sing live.
Needless to say she proved nothing of the sort and it was a total vocal disaster. Just take a listen to the pair singing Need You Now below.

What's a Cheryl Cole? Seriously have never heard of her. Also, you can barely hear her, the music and the guy singing with her were way louder but from what I heard I wasn't impressed, much like any live Katy Perry or Rihanna performance.

I don't understand how she's got WORSE since her Popstars the Rivals days. She has access (and the cash) to the best singing teachers in the world! Grace Jones sang ten times better and she was HULAHOOPING for gawd's sake.

C'mon guys! Don't you remember what Eddie Izzard used to say? Success - it's 70% how you look, 20% how you speak and 10% what you actually say;-) In these terms I find her performance quite successful (70% pros and 20% cons, oh yes and 10% of ambivalence;)For Chrissake, who cares about her singing when she looks in that dress like beautiful mermaid emerging from seafoam;)

Being honest, I bought her album ages ago and dismissed it, now I listen to it daily. She could easily out sing most diva's today! It's also quite sad that of our generation she was probably the only talented (Diva) on that stage....

Yeah I did the same - watched her sing Who You Are live on YouTube randomly one day and just fell in love, though I'd had her album for ages. Then I tarted watching loads of videos, and her voice is just incredible. I've seen her live twice now, and she's just incredible. Such insane control and those belts *gets goosebumps*. Did you see the comment I wrote a couple of hours ago on her profile?

Couldn't agree more, I think 'Big White Room' is probably one of the finest live recorded vocals I have heard in a good few years! Not seen her live but would love to. I used to think her voice was quite scraping but I got used to that now lol

It's not that bad. Just put Britney Spears or Paula Abdul in her place and you'll get the same result. She has a small voice, doubtable technique. But it's not like she was off and couldn't hold a note for longer than a second.

LOL Why are you addressing me with that reply? I have heard Florence and was just a minute ago (irl) saying how much I love her new song/video. BUT...I don't think she has an enormous range live. Judging by this ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h92WNQYxboc

Then again I neither know much about determining range nor do I think that range has much to do with being a great singer.

What really hacks me off is that she's in the papers again today, talking about her performance on 'The Voice' claiming "'If you think my live vocal sounds so good it must be mimed, I'm happy.''I take it as a compliment.'Oh knock it off love!

Right, I'm new here but I know what this blog is about. However I think you take Cheryl Cole performance and her singing abilities way to serious. I mean what can you expect from ex-model who won audition to become part of Girls Aloud? It was not about singing, it was about her overall look. Producers said: "Guys we need third beautiful girl to match. She doesn't need to sing properly because we sell it anyway. There is niche in the market and we're gonna fill it."She is no diva for me at all. My comment above was ironically bitter in fact. I watched her seeing ex-model trying to sing (unsuccessfully).

You hit the nail on the head, plus all the crap she has been spouting recently about Joe McElderry (She knew he was gay before he did apparently) and she didn't want to be a singer and thinks its hard to be a singer just seems like total and utter bollocks to me, she really should watch what she says otherwise the 'Nations Sweetheart' might just turn into the new Katie Price lmao

Thank you! My point of view may be questionable and not right. But I'm very confused. The music (entertainment) industry has become more monstrous than ever before. We are considered only as a customers and target. Producers are able to do almost anything to sell their products (e.g. complex studio postproduction - pitch correction, time correction, dynamic range compression). Being aware of that fact pushed me into cynicism. And I expressed it elsewhere - my comment on Lana Del Rey.

I agree with you T about the industry being more interested in marketing than the 'talent' they are pushing out there, it must be frustrating for those who have real talent and cant get a deal because they are not 'out there' enough or 'sexually provocative' ect ect, where as I think Lana is a genuine talent, there are others too though....its not all bad :)

I totally agree with you about producers creating products rather than artists. But I don't really see how Lana Del Rey fits into that...there's not autotune on her voice, she writes all of her songs, and even directs and edits her own videos.

And don't worry about your point of view being "questionable" because there really is not right or wrong. All of this stuff is pretty subjective.

Well her voice is in no way overly processed. Like in her early albums, that's just her voice. And she can definitely sing live and sound good. Just look at the latest video of her singing her new song "Body Electric" live. She's obviously more comfortable singing in small venues.

Yes, it is clear her hardcore fans are going with the "nerves" excuse. Not only is that to me not really a good excuse after a certain point but also, I am not really buying it because I heard her have issues at small venues.

Thanks. That was my point. Every artist uses pitch-correction, but my point was to say that her voice is not totally processed like say, T-Pain, Nicki Minaj, Kesha, Selena Gomez, or even Katy Perry. Especially in her songs on her previous unreleased albums.

I never said anything about nerves. I said she is more comfortable performing in small venues. Which, I think, is perfectly acceptable. I mean, after she's been completely bullied by the media, why wouldn't she be more comfortable performing for people who really want to see her, rather than performing for universal audiences like on SNL and American Idol.

I'm not gonna say she doesn't have her issues with live singing but she does just that, sing live. She's confused she's more of a studio singer (I don't really buy that term in general) and doesn't try to act like anything but.

And my reason for bringing up LDR in the first place was to tell why I don't understand how people say she's a record label product instead of a true artist, not to get into an argument about how she pulls off amazing vocals in the studio and no so great ones live. We all know she doesn't do well live most of the time and even a hardcore fan can admit that.

It's not limited to pop.Rock, Pop, Country, and even some studio opera recordings have used/use pitch correction. And pretty much anything that ends up on the radio regardless of genre has been pitch corrected by some degree.

You guys can believe that if you want and I know you are not alone in that. It's a general thing people have taken to saying I personally doubt is true as much as you think. I AM sure it is true a lot these days in pop music and the crap which passes for rock and country you hear on the radio. Which does tell you a lot about how many people get to record albums and be called artist when really they have no business being in a recording studio.But they are loads of artists who actually don't need pitch correction and don't use it because they simply don't like it.And rightly so.

What exactly would you say is the difference then between "she gets nervous" and "she is more comfortable in small venues"?

And that term "studio singer"? it's THE most ridiculous thing I ever heard. a "studio singer" is someone who makes money singing back up on other people's albums because they don't have the name to front an album of their own. The same way one can be a studio musician.It used to be called a professional. It seems that term "studio singer" is now used as an excuse by people dumb enough to become fans of essentially a producer but smart enough to realize the supposed artist is in fact the work of "art" rather than the artist . It is frankly bollocks. And imo it is corporating with the decline of MUSIC business into a BUSINESS

I don't know if she's true artist or record label. The album sounds as it was perfectly tailored for certain auditory. It makes me suspicious.As for her songwriting talents - we can argue about quality of her lyrics. She's not Patty Smith apparently. She offers fistful of pop-cultural cliches in couple variants - it's repetitive in some way.Forgive me Hannah, I haven't been hooked on her "retro spleen". It's to coherent to be authentic. You got sultry lyrics, you got her low and sexy voice, you got her appearance (modern Lauren Bacall?), her videos send you back to 50's, finally the music style. Every piece makes perfect sense in whole phenomenon called Lana Del Rey. Too good to be true.

Did you even read my comment? I said it seems as if it's easier for her to sing in small venues because she knows she's singing for people who really appreciate her and WANT to hear her. I NEVER said anything about nerves. And if you don't think factors like nerves come into how well a singer performs, you're an idiot.

And didn't you fucking read that I said I don't buy the term "studio singer" either???

And by the way, I don't see these as "silly" excuses, it's simply the way it is. You think she's not a good singer; I do. I think that there are indeed factors that go into how well she performs live (every artist is different); you don't. We have to agree to disagree.

She was giving an example of how a band that someone wouldn't expect to use autotune (Breaking Benjamin) uses it. Therefore other bands and artists you think wouldn't use it, might. She's not obviously not "proving" that everybody uses autotune.

Dude, you totally don't have to like Lana Del Rey. Not everyone's going to. She seems to polarize a lot of people. I guess I just have a hard time with people claiming she's a record label creation...But then again, she's had sooo many alter egos and stuff, it's actually kinda hilarious.

And as for her songwriting, I actually agree with you. There are a BUNCH of cliches in her writing (especially in "Born To Die"- the song) and it does get repetitive (like references to Coney Island and stuff) but something about her music is like I've never heard it before. I'm not saying she's some almighty innovator (and I'm only 18, so I've got tons of music to listen to) but I think her songs and lyrics are really personal to her and I really appreciate her sharing them to the world. Her music is also really nostalgic for me, for some reason. It all comes down to personal opinion, regardless.

Hannah, I like you but maybe you should stop explaining other people's words for them? In the way Misty's comment is constructed it sounds like she feels the fact that her band even" using it proves something. And how can you talk about "everybody uses it" and "bands you wouldn't expect to use it" in one line of thinking. If you believe everybody uses it, there obviously are not a lot of bands you would not expect to use it.

I will as most certainly the majority of artist I listen to are not only pre the existence and certainly and admittedly widespread use of pitch correction, a lot are even pre the use of computers in studios. And that is why these people can deliver live with just the basics or even acoustic ( and that is acoustic in the original definition) consistently and why I call those people artists. :)

LOL Don't get all in a huff. THINK through what your comment says. What the hell is "more comfortable"if not "less nerving".

You actually said you "don't by into the term IN GENERAL".Perhaps the problem is not in my reading but your phrasing?

And you are perfectly free to consider off key and lack of control of voice to fall under the heading of "good singing" but nope, no way am I going to call that a mere matter of disagreement. That's simply just an incorrect view. That is not a matter of tastes differ. If you claim the sun is purple I am not going to agree to disagree I am going to say you must be colorblind or something.

Opie, I was about to write exactly the same - live performance is the final verification. But I hesitate. I wish it was so "black and white" (maybe it is). There's at least one artist I really like who suffered horrible stage fright. She couldn't cope with it so her performances were frequently interrupted by panic attacks in the middle of gigs. Later she tried to find relief in booze. You can easily imagine the effects. Her name is Cat Power (Chan Marshall).

Well T. I am just posting my views here of course. But I do think it basically IS that black and white. If you get stagefright so bad you can't sing well, that makes you a poor singer because singing IS the job at hand. But that doesn't mean I don't feel for such a singer and if I find some proof they CAN deliver live under other circumstances resembling a stage performance ( say an obvious not utterly processed private or home taping or some such) I would say, yes, a good singer.

The problem with Lana is that I just never heard her do the kind of singing which qualifies her as a "good" singer. But like I said, that is in itself not such a terrible thing, Only if "singer" is all you are and/or strive to be. But Lana is the kind of performer who writes her own music and consequently is more in the business of delivering her story/emotions than just singing. I personally am fine with such an artist but I DO get annoyed if people go around claiming that artist is a "good" singer. and I especially get annoyed if they combine it with excusing the use of pitch correction. I feel it is an insult to those singers who ARE actually good singers and work at being good singers.

I like you too Opie, and you're a strong presence on this blog, so I would prefer not to argue with you but I explained her comment because I felt like you misunderstood her and turned it around to be condescending. She wasn't trying to "prove" anything.

Okay, Opie. I see that I'm not getting my point across. I don't consider off key and lack of control singing good singing. I've said on here time and time again (even before you came to this blog) that Lana is not a good performer and that her live singing is no match for her studio voice. Perhaps you'd like to read my comments on this blog post about the matter. http://www.divadevotee.com/2012/04/lana-del-rey-performs-blue-jeans-on.html So we are in agreement. However, I'm not yet convinced it's just "studio magic" making her voice great on her records. I believe that she has given good live performances and I do think she can sing. That is where we differ; agree to disagree.

Okay, I'm gonna change the phrase "good singer" to "great voice" (I'm mixing the two up in my mind). I think she has a fantastic voice and great potential to make her live performances sound more similar to her studio ones.

Yes, I understand why you did it Hannah but if Misty has any feelings regarding something I said to her or about how I said it, I would prefer her to state those herself. And I don't have the impression she would be shy in doing so ;DBesides which, sometimes a reply is not just a reply but also at the same time an attempt to open a dialogue with the person one is replying to. ;)

NOW I can agree to disagree. That was something I felt you were doing..mixing those two up. I can't agree on disagreeing when I am talking about not actually having heard her song well live versus you , you imply, also not having heard it but sincerely believing she can.But I am willing to agree on both of us sincerely hoping she will get there. ;)Because I like Lana and I agree with you that her trying to sing live is admirable.

Still, you are again arguing as if there is such a thing as a "studio voice". I don't accept anybody having a "studio voice". What you are speaking of is really a computer animated voice. It doesn't exist outside of technology. That, to me, makes it meaningless as a singing voice.

Thank god for the background singers and Gary Barlow. He basically had to carry this performance on his own. This was god awful. Gary looked like he wanted to go upside her head with his microphone. I will say that Cheryl Cole at least knows that she's a talent-less tramp. Have you seen her interview with popjustice? she proves just how musically inept she is by referring to dubstep as "dub", which is a sub-genre of reggae, and refusing to see the similarities between her song "Call my Name" and Rihanna's. She then proceeds to school the interviewer at POPjustice what consitutes as pop music these days. She basically admitted that her record label does everything to craft her image, and that she has no idea what the lyrics to "Call my Name" mean.

Sadly, I saw on BBC today, after seeing this performance Britain en masse decided to purchase her new single. What The Fuck ....one wonders. ( pardon the language but I mean..really, the situation calls for it)

[quote]Watching this again I retract my statement about Barlow, he was pretty bad as well. .[/quote]This just proves that half of you don't know what you're talking about. Cheryl's voice isn't particularly strong, but she didn't sound off key. I can appreciate some people may have higher standards when it comes to vocals but I think a lot of peopel just like to have a go at her because she's beautiful and they are jealous of that, which is really sad. Regardless or what you think of her talent and looks, she clearly worked very hard to get to where she is today.

LOL I doubt the critics here are "jealous" of cheryl Cole. But I have to agree with you and disagree with Mel R...I also thought Gary's vocals were okay.I mean he ain't no Tom Jones but then again, few men can compete with Tom in one and the same show, vocally. But I saw no real point of criticism regarding Barlow's vocals.

You actually took the words out of my mouth, but thats marketing for you...its a shame the younger generation of teeny boppers don't know what good musical taste and class is all about, or maybe I am being too harsh and she is all fun and sunshine to the music industry...but I seriously doubt that view lol x

The only person who doesn't know what they're talking about is you.Take you're deluded ass elsewhere. Cheryl WAS off key, she sounded fucking awful. Higher standards? It's not like I'm expecting her to bust out singing like Mariah Carey. Is asking someone who calls themselves a singer to sing half way decent too much to ask? . Barlow sounded a hell of a lot better than Cheryl, but I don't think he sounded Amazing. Simple as that.

NOTE: Blogging is a time-expensive/cash-poor endeavour. That ain't your problem, I know, but it is nice to know my time and effort is worth something to someone. DD.

Recent Posts

Your browser does not support JavaScript!

Divadevotee instagram

Featured posts

NOTE: ABUSIVE comments will be deleted ASAP. Doesn't matter who you are, or what the cause is, they will be deleted. Some may call that censorship, but I've held out on doing it previously, hoping people would moderate their own behavior, and it's only become worse.

This blog isn't about spreading more negativity on the net, it's about discussing Divas- a topic that isn't serious enough for people to go in on each other.